Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Gay flag.svg WikiProject LGBT studies:
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
Drawing-Gay flag.png WikiProject
LGBT studies
Project navigation links
Main project page
 → Project talk page
Watchlist talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → Collaboration talk
 → Community talk
 → Jumpaclass talk
 → Newsletter
 → Peer review talk
 → Person task force talk
 → Translation talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines talk
Notice board talk
Sexuality and gender
deletion discussions
Info resources
Bot reports
Newly tagged articles and
assessment level changes
Article alerts
Unreferenced BLPs
(Biographies of Living
Persons)
Cleanup listing
New articles with
LGBT keywords
Popular pages
Portals we help maintain
Portal LGBT.svg LGBT portal
Portal Transgender.svg Transgender portal
edit · changes

Save Our Children[edit]

Hi!

I am translating into French your article about Save Our Children. It is an interesting work and I am happy to make it part of the French wikipedia (although I am only working on a subpage now). Unfortunatly, some paragraphes need citations and I am not sure that the articulation of all the ideas is always well-done... I wanted to tell you that because I think Anita Bryant's campaign is one of the most important moments of LGBT history in the US. And perhaps someone here has material which could improve the actual page...

Sorry for my English, I read it better than I write it.

Konstantinos (from the French Wikipedia)

Phyll Opoku-Gyimah[edit]

Could use some fleshing out. There's a couple of sources in the "External links", and more available on-line. All the best: Rich Farmbrough21:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC).

Laura Lam[edit]

Lam is a YA author who's works so far heave an intersex protagonist. The article is listed at AfD. Her article would benefit form attention, and in particular needs research to meet WP:AUTHOR and/or WP:GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough15:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC).

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

  • What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
  • When? June 2015
  • How can you help?
    1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
    2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
    3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Update: We are 1/2 way through June and on track to reach 100 new LGBT-related articles created. If you have not yet contributed to Wiki Loves Pride in some way, please consider donating even just a few minutes of your time by creating or improving an LGBT-related article and updating the Results page. Also, I am happy to share that this Facebook post by Wikimedia LGBT+ was shared by Wikipedia's account and therefore reached more than 46,000 users! Happy editing, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"Homosexual" vs. "Gay" – Wikipedia policy?[edit]

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I can't remember seeing it anywhere: There are a few LGBT related pages I've been editing, where certain Wikipedia editors have insisted every use of the word "gay" be replaced with "homosexual" instead, and vice versa. I just want to know what Wikipedia's official policy/consensus is on the issue, or isn't there one? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no direct policy. Usage will depend on sources and context. In the modern age people self identify as gay rather than homosexual, and changing this to homosexual can be pointy or even deliberately offensive. For example mass changes of gay marriage to homosexual marriage would be disruptive and is not supportable by neutral sources. Historical use however may well be accurate, so a big difference between BLPs and articles about dead people.
It has been discussed before, worth searching the archives. -- (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe modern style guides favor "gay" over "homosexual." There's a feeling that "homosexual" is better in historical articles, but really "homosexual" is no less anachronistic than "gay" in articles on people who lived before the word's coinage in 1892. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
For discussions regarding the offensiveness and/or flexibility of the term homosexual and/or homosexuality vs. gay and/or lesbian; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles. There was also a discussion at WP:Med about it: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56#Use of the term "homosexual.". Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the archive search, very useful Face-smile.svg. I had in mind the GLAAD media reference guide when making my first comment, and I have successfully used it in discussing similar issues. This is the NY Times guidance from the GLAAD page which nicely could be used to hit the nail on the head:
gay (adj.) is preferred to homosexual in most references. Generally confine homosexual in specific references to sexual activity or clinical orientation.
-- (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
In the WP:Med debate, I also pointed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles; like I mentioned there, we should do a FAQ on this because it keeps coming up. Use of homosexual is definitely a case-by-case basis at times. And use of homosexuality, as opposed to homosexual, is usually more accepted because it more often refers to behavior instead of to a person or to a person's sexual orientation. Flyer22 (talk) 10:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Where would an FAQ go? To have a real impact across Wikipedia, there could be a minor amendment to MOS. This question has a track record spanning several years, so there should be sufficient grounds to create a sensible RfC or proposal for change. -- (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking of the FAQ going at the top of this page. And as can been seen in the "Style guideline of gay vs homosexual" discussion I linked to above, there was a minor attempt to make this matter into a guideline; see the vote there at the end, in the Suggested guidelines for gay and homosexual section. I have my doubts that a guideline on this would work, given that homosexual should be used in some cases and Wikipedians have a tendency to blindly cite Wikipedia's guidelines without thinking of the exceptions and when they are hurting instead of helping; I see that often with WP:Words to watch, and there is currently ample debate at that talk page showing it. Flyer22 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I support amending LGBT project level guidelines with a clarification similar to the NY Times quote above (nobody seems in disagreement to this sort of distinction between gay and homosexual). This would be a nice uncontentious first step and would be good evidence for how this specialist project has established a consensus for any further steps to promote the guidance more widely, or just as something solid to link to (along with a handy shortcut?) to use in article discussions.
I sympathise with a feeling of pointlessness at the prospect of trying to get this explicitly in MOS, Wikipedia being 'democratic' in a way that more often that not means that minority views are too easily put aside as 'fringe', 'advocacy' or just trolling. Establishing a local guide along with identifying the best supporting independent sources, such as GLAAD and the NYT, is a powerful friend to prop up your point of view. Face-smile.svg Times change, and the wide Wikipedia community reflects evolving social values, so it is worth testing the waters with an RfC on this type of issue, even if similar proposals were wikilawyered away a year or two ago. -- (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gay is for people, homosexual is for when absolute specificity is needed, e.g. in sociological, psychological, etiological or medical contexts. That should be the policy.Zythe (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

As the issue of when to use, or swap, the terms "gay" and "homosexual" to describe a living or deceased person is a perennial subject (as per the archive links above), it seems worth setting down a standard in project level guidelines.

I propose the following basic text be added as a new section to Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies#Guidelines, with its own easy to remember shortcut (perhaps WP:gay?) to refer to in future discussions for preferred style:

-- (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Amended to break out quotes from AP and NY Times as a reference. Added Canadian Press example. -- (talk) 11:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Amended to include cases where homosexual could be describing a woman. -- (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment I think it would be better to briefly quote (and cite) the GLAAD style guide rather than simply external link it. Don't force users to unnecessarily go outside Wikipedia for basic information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should provide a few references to support this point of style, it would help to give it weight in any discussion? I'm happy to see the GLAAD link turned into a footnote as the text I have used closely follows the NY Times reference in the GLAAD guide (the guide is actually a list of citations from other sources). -- (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Rather directly quote and cite mainstream guides such as AP and NYT because GLAAD could be regarded as non-neutral per WP:RGW. When I was involved in creating the WikiProject Disability style guide objections were raised against using "activist" style guides as sources. Try to find a few non-US sources too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll try having a hunt around such as checking the online full OED, may take me a few days so I'm happy to others to step in. Yes, citing AP and NYT directly makes sense. I think the last time I searched around this area was two or three years ago, and finding credible non-US centric sources proved almost impossible. Hopefully a few other style guides have addressed this specific terminology since then. -- (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Found a few British guides - Guardian newspaper, The Telegraph newspaper (both unfortunately very brief) and an interesting blog, Clarity about 'the gay thing', on the Oxford Dictionary website. Our own list article List of style guides links many different guides. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for the suggestions Roger; quick Sunday morning feedback, but yet to do a proper search myself:
  1. The Telegraph's guide is a mixed bag of poor quality or even misleading, I suggest parking it/discouraging anyone from using it as it seems poorly maintained.
  2. The Guardian's style guide is weak, the entry for gay being okay, but there is no entry for homosexual, only "homosexual rape" which guides you to drop the word homosexual and if necessary use "male rape" (perhaps there is more guidance for the word homosexual somewhere non-obvious, I could not find it).
  3. Gary Nunn's article is informative, it could be considered an advocacy piece (he did work for Stonewall) but does expand the issue. I've sent Gary a tweet, hoping that he knows of some credible sources. Face-smile.svg
As I suspected finding non-US alternatives may only find weaker or less up to date guides. I have stumbled across this sensible Canadian Press based alternate:
Sexuality
Gay is usually preferred as an alternative for homosexual men and is also commonly used for women, although lesbian is preferred by many women. Use sexual orientation, not sexual preference. Language is still evolving on what to call the individuals in a same-sex relationship or marriage. Partner, husband and wife are all acceptable options depending on preference.
Ref ucalgary.ca and j-source.ca -- (talk) 11:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Support new section being added (although why only "gay man"? Surely the same applies for lesbians?). Although style guides from a wider variety of English-speaking countries could be somewhat more useful, as there may be cultural biases in cases like this. Face-smile.svgZumoarirodoka (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Good point about 'man'. I have amended slightly, by all means suggest further improvements to wording, noting that the objective is to address use of homosexual as an adjective rather than any other frequently problematic words. Face-smile.svg If there are no strong objections, I suggest this is created as a new subsection by, say, the end of June; after which as better, credible alternative non-US, or new sources/style guides become available, the examples can be updated. -- (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Being a convenient Sunday near the end of the month, the proposed text has now been been added to WP:Gay?. Thank you to those who helped with different viewpoints to reach a consensus. -- (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

More Jenner gems[edit]

See discussion at: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-03/Blog#Bruce Jenner was a man. GregKaye 12:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Transgender issues[edit]

Just letting people know about the following deletion discussion which has veered into transgender issues so is therefore relevent to this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial transformation (individual).

Also I note that the Rachel Dolezal and Racial transformation (individual) articles now contain content about transgender issues. Does this mean they are covered by discretionary sanctions and should they be tagged accordingly? -- haminoon (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

And now also this article: Trans-racial. -- haminoon (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
And now this article: Transracial identity. -- haminoon (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh gawd. Skyerise (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification: Gender identity disorder article[edit]

Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Gender identity disorder#Gender dysphoria as commonly recognisable and less judgemental name.

GregKaye 22:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: I altered the heading of this section by adding ": Gender identity disorder article" to it so that it is specific as to what the section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion notification Sex article[edit]

Notification to LGBT and Medicine wikiprojects of discussion at Talk:Sex#Sex, facing ambiguity relating to a potential move/renaming of this article. GregKaye 13:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Should this draft be allowed to enter mainspace?[edit]

Please see Draft:List of people who identify as being genderqueer, which is pending review at AFC. While the current content might be properly sourced per WP:EGRS, I'm pretty sure future additions will sooner rather than later violate BLP. By it's nature such a list is a magnet for improperly sourced (and even malicious) additions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You're very right to have reservations. The various Lists of LGBT people have often been a magnet for tendentious or inappropriate edits, having frequently had people added to them who definitely aren't LGBT, who are rumoured to be LGBT but haven't come out, or who sometimes don't even have articles at all (such as classmates) as a form of vandalism or attack editing — and then even once we instituted a rule that everybody had to have a source before they could be added at all, people started adding fake sources that didn't actually support the person they were adding (e.g. just copying and pasting a source that was already present to support somebody else), or didn't even exist at all.
What we've ultimately done is to keep the lists under permanent semi-protection, so that only users with autoconfirmed privileges can edit them directly — an unregistered or new editor who wants to edit the list can do so only by making an edit request on the talk page. In theory, a more established user could still come and "vandalize" the pages with impunity, but that's not who was normally doing it — it was typically coming from drive-by editors of the IP or new-username varieties, who are properly controlled by the protection.
That, or pending changes so that the users can technically edit the page but would have to have their edits approved by a more established editor before they actually appear in the article, should be done in this case as well — I know Wikipedia doesn't like locking pages any more than it absolutely has to, but there are certain cases where it's entirely appropriate, as the WP:BLP sensitivities are too high. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Bearcat, if I pass it into mainspace now, will you see to the necessary protection? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure thing. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
There's already a section listing notable genderqueer people on the Genderqueer page, so this seems redundant anyway. And as I recently commented on the talk page as part of an argument for renaming the page, there are a number of people who id as something other than male or female but not as specifically genderqueer. Funcrunch (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody's suggesting that the list should include everybody who identifies outside of the gender binary in any way at all; it should include only people who can be reliably sourced as identifying with the term genderqueer in particular, and not those who reject it or prefer an alternate term. And the presence of a list in a topic's head article is rarely if ever a reason to avoid spinning off a standalone list — in many other cases on Wikipedia, a list in the head article is treated as the first step toward the eventual spinoff of a standalone list, once either the number of entries to list and/or the length of the main article justify the creation of the standalone. So this isn't duplication — it can easily be a replacement. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion on the talk page with my concerns. Agreed that there's no problem having a standalone list; my concern is with terminology and self-identification. Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict ]: As soon as I saw Miley Cyrus on the list, I was like, "Oh no, someone is taking liberty with her words. Where has she stated that she is genderqueer? A lot of kids were gender variant growing up or still don't feel quite one gender, but don't identify as genderqueer, non-binary, or as something similar to that." At least now there is a discussion at that talk page about it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Permit WP:Red links in WP:Navboxes?[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Red link#Proposal regarding redlinks in navigation templates; subsection is at Wikipedia talk:Red link#Revision proposal. A WP:Permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sexual preference[edit]

There is no article about this like we made in the German Wikipedia de:Sexualpräferenz. Sexual preference is mostly not like Sexual orientation and it is the trend in the sciencific publication to not use it for sexual orientation. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 13:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Fg68at (Franz), given that we have the Sexual orientation and Sexual identity articles, and that "sexual preference" is commonly taken to mean "sexual orientation" (though scholars often distinguish the two these days), why do we need a Sexual preference article? It would be wholly redundant to the Sexual orientation and Sexual identity articles. As you've surely seen, "sexual preference" currently redirects to the Sexual orientation article and is currently addressed in its lead. Every time an editor has created a Sexual preference article for Wikipedia, it has turned out poorly.
KateWishing, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't feel we need a separate article because the concepts are already covered at Sexual orientation, Paraphilia, and Sexual fantasy. There's no independent literature on "sexual preference" in English. Google Scholar shows the term is still not used in any precise way. At most it could be a disambiguation page. KateWishing (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, there is also Sexual Preference, which redirects to a book. (I looked this and wrote it here in lower case)
  • Sexual Orientation has more Measures: sexual behavior, sexual/romantic attraction, sexual (orientation) identity ("sexual orientation identity" was "prominent" used in an 2009 APA document to clarify what change mostly in ex-gay-therapy)
  • Sexual identity can have also more parts: From biological sex (new more different: genetical sex, gonadal, hormonal sex, genitals), gender identity, social sex role until sexual orientation (identity) on the top. This makes i.e. a gay cismale or androphile cismale or other exaple: a androphile transmale / gay transmale; he looks before (he knows himself) as androphile ciswoman / straight ciswoman. Sexual identity is part of the whole identity of a human. So sexual identity is often used as a synonyme to sexual orientation identity, in English it seems much more as in German and much more in the present, but is not always. The root of this identity-tower/sandwich/layers goes back to Ulrichs or Hirschfeld.
  • Components of Sexual Identity, 1977
  • Sexual Identity PFLAG Canada
  • Should Your Sexual Identity Be Standard Information On Your Medical Records? "A person’s sexual orientation and gender identity should be noted"
  • Sexual Identity (German University, Diversity Management) "Besides gender, ethnicity, age, and religion, sexual identity is also a major contributing factor to a person’s identity. [...] In addition to biological and social gender, sexual identity also includes sexual orientation, which refers to the object of a person’s sexuality."
  • THE SEXUAL IDENTITY OF ATHLETES, 1968 (without sexual orientaton)
  • Sexual Identity (here with preferences)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sexual_preference is not complete. But there is a good explanation: " as they see sexual preference as incorrectly suggesting that sexual orientation is a matter of choice."
  • sexual preference (the term used in ICD-10) or paraphilias (the term used in DSM-IV)
  • ICD-10:2015 F65 Disorders of sexual preference (Incl.: paraphilias) Fetishism, Fetishistic transvestism, Exhibitionism, Voyeurism, Paedophilia (A sexual preference for children ... (There is some dispute if is an preference or an orientation because of the early development and unchanability)), Sadomasochism (A preference for sexual activity which ...), Multiple disorders of sexual preference, Other disorders of sexual preference, Disorder of sexual preference, unspecified
  • Psychiatry
  • Handbook of Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
  • Pathways to Sexual Aggression
  • The evolution of sexual preference, 1915
  • Adult Dating Site Hack Reveals Users' Sexual Preference, Extramarital Affairs (I think there was more then sexual orientation)
  • Stop Saying “Sexual Preference” "One can speak of sexual preferences correctly, perhaps, when it comes to people of the same sexual orientation having different tastes or being attracted to different types, such as a straight woman who prefers men with beards while another is more into the clean-shaven look, or a gay man who prefers more masculine partners while another is into campy characters. It’s also logical enough to use “sexual preference” in the sense of sexual activities—a lesbian who prefers to give rather than to receive oral sex, for instance, or a straight man who prefers sex while standing up rather than lying in bed."
  • The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Bias based on gender ..., "For example, the term sexual preference is considered to bie scientifically and politcally incorrect when refering to sexual orientation because it implies that one chooses or that one can choose a specific sexual orientation."
  • Comprehensive List of LGBTQ+ Term Definitions "(1) generally when this term is used, it is being mistakenly interchanged with “sexual orientation,” creating an illusion that one has a choice (or “preference”) in who they are attracted to; (2) the types of sexual intercourse, stimulation, and gratification one likes to receive and participate in"
I see, in English it is much more used for sexual orientation then in German. But not complete like some dictionaries claims. (You must train your people in the US, so they know it is no choice! ;-) :-) )
Especially roman catholics use the term "homosexual tendencies" (German "homosexuelle Neigungen"). Evangelicals use more "Same sex attraction" (no long used term in German, sometimes "Gleichgeschlechtliche Anziehung"). This is not choosen. In their world there is mostly no sexual orientation or they take the term for sexual orientation identity which is choosen in their view. (This makes much confusion in the Ex-Gay-diaolog or dialog with conservatives. You speak te same words, but mean totally differnt parts and in most conversation you don't recognice it.) Same Sex Attraction is also used in sciencific for the whole range of attraction.
--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 23:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Category for discussion[edit]

I believe, for many LGBT YouTubers, especially those who have found fame or increase fame through a coming out video, being an LGBT YouTuber is a defining characteristic, just like the Gay politicians or Gay writers category. However, a user has nominated the category LGBT YouTubers for deletion. [see the discussion here] AusLondonder (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project[edit]

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.--Lucas559 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SCOTUS ruling and Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

I realize Wikipedia requires a NPOV, which I very much respect, but I think it is safe to assume that many WikiProject LGBT studies participants are very excited and personally affected by today's Supreme Court ruling. This is an historic day! Surely there will be a whirlwind of updates to Wikipedia articles today and for the next few days. I invite project participants to commemorate today's ruling by creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. The annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign ends in a few days, so now is the perfect time to contribute and share the results of your work here. If you need some inspiration or ideas, you can find a sampling of possible articles to create or improve here. All constructive edits are welcome! ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hurrah! Just in time for the Gay Pride march in London tomorrow.ref I'll have to find an American to kiss. Face-smile.svg -- (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I created a page specifically dedicated to photographs taken on June 26, the day of SCOTUS' ruling on marriage equality. I encourage project members to add photographs (ones you've taken or transferred via Flickr) to this page to illustrate the impact of this ruling around the United States. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice the significance of the date? Lawrence v. Texas 26 June 2003, Windsor 26 June 2013, and yesterday's ruling? SusunW (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Gary C. Ross[edit]

Can somebody help out with this article about the first US military officer to have a same-sex wedding? I declined a WP:CSD#A7 and I've had a look around for sources and his wedding is all that seems to be covered - I'm not sure his military career meets WP:MILPEOPLE. I'd rather not send it to AfD per WP:BLP1E as it would be a worthy Did you know? nomination for LGBT history month. Who fancies helping out? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Should states with no recognition of same-sex marriage be described as having a ban against it?[edit]

If someone has past experience on other articles, especially if they know of good reliable sources, they may be able to help at Talk:LGBT_rights_in_Belarus#Distinction_between_same-sex_marriage_being_unrecognised_or_banned.

This may have potential to create a RfC to ensure consistency, it appears that this may be as issue for many articles about constitutional level LGBT rights. -- (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC of Murder of Dwayne Jones[edit]

Hello all; just a quick note to say that I have nominated the Murder of Dwayne Jones article over at FAC; for those not familiar with the case, it was an incident in which a young Jamaican man was murdered in a mob attack motivated by anti-LGBT sentiment. I've already had two responses at the comments page but I would very much appreciate some more if anyone on here was interested. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Same-sex union recognition tables[edit]

Recognition of same-sex unions in Oceania, Recognition of same-sex unions in Europe, Recognition of same-sex unions in South America and Recognition of same-sex unions in North America articles includes the tables listing jurisdictions legally recognising same-sex relationships. Each article has the different version of the table. Perhaps we should adopt one version for all of them. PS: If I did something wrongly in making this request, then I'm sorry. Ron 1987 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Support Standardization - I'm also glad you shifted the discussion here. I have three main points to make about the pages. 1). I did a revision of the North America map and an attempted one on the Oceania map. The reason for doing so was to standardize them to a degree; making it easier for readers to navigate across them. After I made changes to the North American sub-national section, I was satisfied with the layout. I found that the Caribbean and Oceanian regions have a higher concentration of European dependencies. As a result, I crafted the tables so that they could easily show which dependencies fell under each countries jurisdiction. 2) I noticed that the European and Oceanian versions show relationship schemes that have been replaced with legislation granting more (or equal) rights. For example, The Netherlands has listings for marriage, registered partnership and unregistered cohabitation. While all were important strides for gay rights in the country, I was under the assumption that these recognition pages were to detail the current (and greatest) relationship scheme available to LGBT people in each country; further research into the history reserved for the individual page, which was always linked to the countries listing. 3) Lastly, I think that the population break down on the South American page is something that should be brought to the remaining ones.
I would propose using the North American layout (showing the highest attainment of rights & national jurisdiction over dependencies), including South American style population counts and the European style "future legislation" section on all other pages. Chase1493 (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I would also be happy to make all the necessary changes across all pages myself, if no one else wants too. It's becoming quite the hobby for me ;). Chase1493 (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Standardization as per Chase1493's suggestions. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Standardization, there are some easy things to do (removing the EU flags in Europe, as the EU is very explicitly has no competence regarding the status of people), and other things should be thought about. I wouldn't be very happy to remove "earlier" or "less complete" recognitions (like same sex unions in the Netherlands), as that amounts to recentism and it is a personal choice what is the "greatest" option (people may prefer same sex unions). In the sidebar that is needed to avoid clutter, but in those regional articles, there is space to get into more detail.... L.tak (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Conditional support for standardisation – I would like to see the countries with a same-sex marriage constitutional ban included in the standardised tables. – Sdino (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
If you take a look at the North America page; as well as the Oceania page I revised (see history) I included constitutional ban states. I agree with you though, it is a necessary inclusion. Chase1493 (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Transgendereds[edit]

Given that "transgender" is more common and more concise than "transgendered" (ref), and that "transgendered" is often considered offensive and compared to saying someone is "blacked" or "blackened" rather than "black" (ref, ref, ref, postscript also ref, ref), I propose we go through the 454 articles which use "transgendered" and update them to use "transgender" (except, obviously, where the word appears in a quote, an organization's name, etc). (Even if one does not personally feel that "transgendered" is offensive, I submit that it's still preferable to use "transgender" since it doesn't offend people and is more common.) -sche (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully support this intention and think it would be a great improvement. How do you best go about finding those 454 articles? SPACKlick (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Using Special:Search - htonl (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Support this. But we must be careful to not alter quotes. We might also ask someone at AWB to add a regex to change "transgendered" to "transgender". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to ask for replacement to be made a default in AWB, because on the first few pages of Special:Search (all I've gone through so far), greater than 50% of uses turned out to be in book titles or quotations. I don't know if that ratio holds true for all 454 pages or not. I suppose I'll make a careful pass with AWB with such regex and find out! (So far I've only changed a few pages, and those by hand.) -sche (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
@-sche: it's possible to get AWB to ignore stuff in quotes, refs, or even italics. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I fully support this. Should an amendment be placed on the "Transgender and intersex people" section at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines to reflect this change and the reasons why, if it does occur? – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and thanks for pointing out that page; I had wondered if this wikiproject had a page for recording suggested terminology. I notice an earlier discussion of the same words. I would like to also add language explaining that transgender should not be used as a noun denoting a person ("the film features two transgenders", "Smith is a transgender"); any opinions on that? (Transgender is sometimes a noun denoting the state of being transgender, and that seems OK.) -sche (talk) 18:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd support that. The BBC News style guide seems to agree (at least for the term "transsexual"), as well as the Guardian/Observer style guide. (I've tried to avoid organisations such as GLAAD as per its advocacy (which some people might view as soapboxing) – if anyone knows of any neutral style guides that mention the issue please let me know). The past discussion over the use of the terms "gay" vs. "homosexual" may also be informative on this matter. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
OK; I've overhauled Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Guidelines, mostly just to make it more concise but in some cases to address the "this is out of date" tag by bringing it up-to-date with the current MOS:IDENTITY and WP:BIRTHNAME guidance. I also added a section on the use of transgender as a noun and on transgendered. I think it's alright to cite GLAAD's style guide in this matter, particularly because we have other style guides which say to do the same things GLAAD says to do — GLAAD just does a better job of explaining why to do those things. -sche (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for rewriting/adding to that section. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)